Why are the triangle reticules not liked for theTA31 and TA11 ACOG'S? What are the problems with the triangle?

If you have to leave any drop on distant targets they are totally obscured by the triangle.

Stick with the crosshairs.

I'm sure someone will jump all over me for not providing the correct info, but I'll give this a go...

The triangle is considered by some to be too thick a reticule for long distance shooting.  The Chevron and Donut offer more reference points for targeting long ranges.  The triangle only offers the tip for precision shooting.  In defense of the reticule, it's bigger and brighter for CQB, although the donut does that too, maybe better.

From what I gather, the donut is the "ACOG Supreme"

I owned a TA11 with a triangle.  Great optic.

I agree with a lot of this but I far prefer the crosshair, EVEN for CQB.  Snapshots are really easy with the BAC if you get the Compact ACOG, which I suggest.

3 meters or 300, I can put rounds where I want them fast.

For a moment I thought Tatjana refered to TA01nsn and was going to say it is too fine [:D]

I agree with all the points others have presented.  Plus, I would [i]believe[/i] that it would be hard for [i]me[/i] to adjust to using the [i]tip[/i] of the triangle for BAC use.  My eye would be drawn to the center of the triangle.  Some people say that the triangle is more precise because you use the very tip of the triangle when aiming.  But the tip is only good for the sight in range of 100 yards, plus a little bit further, so all of that "precision is loss once you get out there a ways because your aim point will be either using the center of the triangle or holding over with the tip, which tatjana already said blotted out the target.

The my summary points for the donut over the triangle are.

1.  Donut offers a more natural BAC shape.

2.  Ranges at which donut would be [i]slightly[/i] less precise aiming point are close enought that it won't matter.

3.  If you look at the blotting issue of the triangle, but apply it to the donut, it is possible that you would be able to see through the donut and underneath the lower edge of the donut to easily define a good aim point.  I don't know, I have never handled a TA31.

That makes sense...huh...my brain is now turning...

"Hmmm...maybe I DO need a Compact ACOG...with red crosshairs...hmmm..."

[beer]

This is a general rule I established for myself

For 4x ACOG, go Donut

For 2/3x Compact ACOG, go Triangle

While I think Triangle is pretty good reticule, I still prefer Donut over Triangle for 4x models. But, for even simpler Compact ACOG, I think you can't beat Triangle.

They spread disease.




Seriously, tomato - tomahto... it is primarily a personal preference issue. I like the donut best for my own use because:

1) my eyes see it better than the triangle or chevron - though that doesn't necessarily mean your eyes will

2) five visible reference points (top of donut, top of donut hole, center, bottom of donut hole, bottom of donut) for aiming vs. three for triangle and chevron (top of reticle, center (if you can see it), bottom of reticle)

3) Donut and chevron obscure less of target area. At the range I just joined there is a 6" round rifle gong at 200 that I can hit with the donut; but would be completely obscured if I had a triangle.

The ACOG is designed to put hits on a man-sized target at various ranges; but it is worth remembering that man-sized targets often get a lot less than man-sized when you start shooting at them. Look at your own use, how often would you take a 200yd shot offhand without kneeling or going prone for better stability? If somebody is shooting at you from that distance, they might also be doing something similar that reduces the target size.

Still at the end of the day, the differences between the different ACOG reticles are like the differences between a 87 Camaro, a 87 Firebird, and a 87 Trans-Am.

Try them out, find what works for YOU and your situation and go with that. If you can't try them out, take a look at the reticle image thread tacked in the Optics forum - it has a lot of good pics that can help you decide.

Personally I find the Triangle Compact ACOGs to be the best of the bunch.

Precise when needed (more so than the other reticules) - but 'beefy' up close for faster aquisition; this is VERY important when shooting in the dark and you have to illuminate the target.

Hold over not much of a problem because at the ranges you really need to hold over (and that will obscure the target) - I don't expect to be shooting with a 5.56.

I have a triangle and like it fine.  Watch-Six

I'm going with tatjana on this one (again!)
TA-50R-4

Maybe the triangle needs a catchy saying like new-arguy's "Not only cops love donuts."  May I respectfully submit for your approval "Not only Egyptians love pyramids"?  Watch-Six

Amber triangle= Egyptian pyramid

Red triangle= Mayan pyramid

That being said I have a 2x20 Egyptian compact ACOG that I am very happy with.

Or perhaps.....The "tactical triangle" is deadlier than the Bermuda triangle.  Or..."the ancient secret of the pyramid" (we could start a religion with that one), or... "the pyramid of death",  or.....   you get the idea.  Watch-Six

I spent two months going over which optics to buy including running a combat course with three variants.

I finally picked the amber crosshairs on the Compact.

It will come down to taste but, believe me, you'll have no trouble picking them up in CQB thanks to the BAC method.  None.  There is no need for a triangle or doughnut.

Tatjana

Why did you like the amber color the best? What model did you get? Don’t you have trouble with the short eye relief and small exit pupil in the different shooting position?

I have a TA31A. It is an excellent optic, and an excellent reticle. Those who say otherwise have a right to their opinion. I won't go further.

I own a TA31 and am looking to give up a bit of speed/acqusition in the cqb application for the slightly higher precision the chevron offers at longer ranges. My current needs not withstanding, I find the donut/bac hard to beat for a multipurpose optic.  BTW those who are unhappy with their chevron TA31F's or TA11F's and are looking to "go donut" feel free to IM me.
Mike, NY

I have the TA-50R-4 - I returned my 2x crosshair model as it wasn't "strong" enough to me. The eye relief problem was "cured" with a drill press. I popped a hole about 1.25" further aft on the carry handle.

[img]http://photos.ar15.com/ImageGallery/Attachments/DownloadAttach.asp?iImageUnq=14782[/img]

Modified like this the A2 sight can't crank up beyond 300 yards but that's what the ACOG is there for anyway right?

I have two triangle recticle ACOG's. One Ta-31 and a Compact Ta50. They are both great. I read somewhere on this site that you use the tip for 100 yards, the middle for 200 yards and the bottom for 300 yards. Picking up the recticle is just as easy as the crosshairs or the doughnut for fast acquisition.

Everytime I shoot with Brouhaha or go to his house I try to get his Compact ACOG with cross hairs to work in a BAC mode for me....

It NEVER WORKS FOR ME!  In fact its got such a thin line of illumination that its only colored half the time to my eyes.  My suggestion is to try the crosshair before you buy because if your like me it will not work AT ALL and you would be super pissed if you dropped that kind of cash and then compared the BAC funtion of the Red Donut in the TA11 or TA31.

IMO the red donut is 10 Times more usable in BAC mode than an amber crosshair.  YMMV

I avoid the crosshair since the ACOg is designed a general combat scope.  you will need to use the reticle for CQB out to 300 plus yards.  the crosshair might be great for long range but it is useless for CQB action. I really prefer the Donut or the Triangle which I have both and enjoy the advantage it provide in long and CQB range engagements.  

I do like my triangle, the tip is great for long range precision shooting and the body is big and bright enough to pick up fast in close in work.  I sight in my TA31a at 100 yards at the tip.

I love my TA50-R4 for close up work.  I've never had a problem quickly finding human type targets the way my TA01-NSN does, which fails miserably (especially in dim and dark lighting environments). If you want, you can use the top, middle intersection, and bottom of the cross for a rough 100/200/300, but I just zero the center for 100.   If you plan to shoot past that, get a full size ACOG with the rangefinding ticks.  I'll still take my donut TA-11 over my compact any day.
[img]http://www.trijicon.com/parts/2D4B.jpg[/img][img]http://www.trijicon.com/parts/4C57.jpg[/img]
If I aim for a head anywhere within 300, I'll hit the target's head.  That's all I need.  I'm not a shooter that has to hit the left eyeball if I aim for the left eyeball- at least not at 300 or beyond.  I have other toys for that.

I think most of this debate is moot, since everybody has different needs- and different results with the BAC feature.  The question to ask isn't "Which ACOG is best", its "Which ACOG is best FOR YOU."   My best advice is to try different models and see what works for you.  What you like, others won't.  Example: I like red over amber, while others hate red.  Everyone's mileage varies, and Trijicon knows it.  That's why there are so many different models.  

"I think most of this debate is moot, since everybody has different needs- and different results with the BAC feature. The question to ask isn't "Which ACOG is best", its "Which ACOG is best FOR YOU." My best advice is to try different models and see what works for you. What you like, others won't. Example: I like red over amber, while others hate red. Everyone's mileage varies, and Trijicon knows it. That's why there are so many different models."

This is without a doubt, the [b]BEST[/b], and most [b]INTELLEGENT[/b] comment on the ACOG subject I have read to date.

Thank You Kisara!

I like the chevron, and I'm OK.